"if the Pagan and Jewish Doctrines differed from "the Chriftian." (p. 71. Notes.) i. e. Because both Jews and Pagans taught this Doctrine erroneously, or upon mistaken Principles, therefore they did not teach it at all.—The Truth is, many circumftantial Differences notwithstanding, the Doctrine of a future State, whether taught truly or erroneously, whether deduced from Arguments of Reason, or from Authority of Scripture; whether the Nature of it, or our Claim and Title to it, be ascertained or not, is the fame Doctrine still as far as it has Reference to one and the fame Thing, viz. immortal Exiftence after this Life; and confequently Christianity as far as it confirms the natural Arguments for a future State, is, with respect to this Doctrine, as much " a Republica"tion of the Religion of Nature" as it is with regard to many natural and moral Duties: which yet the Examiner seems to think a terrible Confequence of his Lordship's Objection. (p. 71.) For, fays he, "according to his Lordship's Objection, a future

Immortality might be deduced from the moral "Attributes of God; and confequently would have "followed in the natural Order, and Course of "Things, whether Chrift had fuffered or not. "His Death and Sacrifice therefore would have "been unneceffary, unless we can fuppofe they

were appointed for the Attainment of an End, "which had no Dependence upon them, and must "naturally have followed, tho' they had never been." (ibid.)

U 2

(ibid.) i.e. they would have been unnecessary, unless they had been unnecessary !—But to speak to the Argument. A future Immortality, however deduced or inferred, does follow in the natural Order and Courfe of Things, as God in his Wisdom and Goodness had settled and pre-ordained the whole intire System of our Salvation. But how do we by afferting this detract from the Merits of Chrift, or fuperfede the Neceffity of that Sacrifice which was, the great Article, or Bafis of this System? Did the Ignorance of Mankind, with regard to this, render it less an Article, &c. of this System ? Do natural Hopes of Immortality imply natural Claims to it? Or, are not all Men actually redeemed by Grace, notwithstanding the Deductions of pure Reafon, or the Expectations of mere Nature? — I leave it now with the Candid to determine how far his Lordship's own Theory, or Objection to the other, is likely to " ennoble the natural System by annexing to it the Promise of a future Im"mortality; how far he paganizes the Gospel "Institution, divests it of the essential Doctrine of

Redemption, and fo finks and degrades it into a " mere Republication of the Religion of Nature." (p. 72.)

It is Time now to confider fome Paffages of the Old Testament relative to this Controversy.The principal infifted upon by the Examiner are

the

the following from the Pfalms, and from Isaiah. What Profit is there of my Blood, when I go down into the Pit? Shall the Duft praise thee? Shall it declare thy Truth? Wilt thou fhew Wonders to the Dead? Shall the Dead arife, and praise thee? Shall thy Loving-kindness be declared in the Grave, or thy Faithfulness in Deftruction? Shall thy Wonders be known in the dark, and thy Righteousness in the Land of Forgetfulness? (Pf. xxx. 9.—lxxxviii. 10. 11. &c.) Which Questions the Pfalmift answers in the negative, the Examiner acquaints us, by saying, The Dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into Silence. (Pfalm cxv. 17.) In DEATH there is NO REMEMBRANCE of thee: In the Grave who shall give thee Thanks? (Pfalm vi. 5.)-Again, The Grave, fays Hezekiah in the Prophet Ifaiah, cannot praise thee; Death cannot celebrate thee. They that go down into the Pit, CANNOT HOPE FOR THY TRUTH. (Isaiah xxxviii. 18. 19.)-Now if the general Tenor of the Old Testament, and of the whole History of the Jews, the necessary Interpretation of very many Texts, and the Suppofitions of the Author of the D. L. himself, demand a different Sense to be put upon the Paffages before us from that given by the Examiner, (which, it is acknowledged, if exclufively and independently confidered, they will fairly and naturally bear) I fay, in this Cafe, all his Inferences and Conclufions from them will fall to the Ground,

-I fhall wave at prefent the Bulk of the Arguments to be drawn from the Tenor and Hiftory of the Old Testament, and from the necessary Conftructions of many Texts, and content myself with obferving, 1ft, that even" the rabbinical Notion of "another Life, picked up by the Jews from among "their Pagan Neighbours," &c. (p. 71. Notes) as contemptible as Dr. Warburton represents it to be, is yet irreconcileable with the Notion of utter Extinction, or with abfolute Defpair in regard to Futurity; and therefore, fuppofing David only to have been as wife as one of these Rabbins, the Paffages in queftion cannot imply any thing like it. -Again, "the Author of the D. L. (as Dr. Steb

bing obferves) cannot interpret the Words in this "Senfe, confiftently with his Suppofition that the Jewish Prophets had the Knowledge of a future "State." (p. 58. Notes.) This the Examiner calls an Evafion, and makes it out to be fo in the following Manner. "When the Author of the D.L.

fays the Jewish Prophets had this Knowledge, does "the Dr. imagine that he meant every Prophet? or, "does not the Citation of these Paffages evidently

fhew, that the Pfalmift was not in the Number "of the Prophets to whom the Author affigns this "Knowledge?" (p. 59. Notes.)-Now, I apprehend it to be impoffible to give a fatisfactory Reafon why one Prophet should have this Knowledge, and not another; or at least why David in particular

was

was one of the Number to whom this Knowledge was denied. The Texts above cited will furely never be found to amount to a Proof of this, though we had none but the following to confront them with. Wherefore my Heart was glad, and my Glory rejoiced; my Flesh also shall reft in Hope. For why? thou shalt not leave my Soul in Hell, neither shalt thou fuffer thy Holy One to fee Corrup tion. Thou shalt fhew me the Path of Life; in thy Prefence is the Fullness of foy, and at thy right Hand there is Pleasure FOR EVERMORE. (Pfalm xvi. 9. 10. &c.) "From thefe Words, (the Ex"aminer fays) his Lordship's Followers conclude, "that David expected to enjoy a State of everlast"ing Happiness in Heaven." And surely upon as good Grounds as need be; for if these Words are not ultimately relative to a future State, it will be hard methinks to prove that any Paffage in the Old or New Teftament is; and even if there could be any doubt about it, furely St. Peter's Application of these Texts must determine the Matter. David, fays he, fpeaketh concerning him, (Chrift) I forefaw the Lord always before my Face, for he is on my right Hand, that I fhould not be moved: Therefore did my Heart rejoice, and my Tongue was glad; moreover alfo my FLESH SHALL REST IN HOPE: Because thou wilt not LEAVE my SOUL in HELL, neither wilt thou fuffer thy Holy One to fee CORRUPTION: Thou haft made known to me the Way of LIFE, &c.